Agnel Anthon Dsouza vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Agnel Anthon Dsouza vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned rejection order quashed and set aside; approval granted to the Petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak from the date of appointment (01.09.2021); Education Officer to issue the approval order within 15 days; Management to initiate the Shalarth ID process within 15 days thereafter; Rule made absolute.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the proposal for approval of the Petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak, based solely on the ground that the appointment was made during the period of the ban on recruitment under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 04.05.2020, is sustainable, given that the G.R. would not be applicable to a minority educational institution. +1 more

Court's answer

The G.R. dated 04.05.2020 imposing a ban on recruitment would not be applicable to a minority educational institution, a position the learned AGP does not dispute; consequently, the sole ground on which the approval proposal was rejected is unsustainable.

Ratio / Principle

This Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the approval proposal is quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

Since the only ground for rejection of the proposal has been held unsustainable in Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar and Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh & Ors. (supra), there is no reason to remand the matter to the Education Officer; approval is granted to the Petitioner's appointment from the date on which he was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak.ratio¶37
The Education Officer shall issue the approval order within 15 days, and the Management shall initiate the process for obtaining a Shalarth ID for the Petitioner within 15 days thereafter.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghuge & Mantri, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 14689 of 2024, decision 30.01.2026: The Petitioner, selected through an advertisement in Loksatta (23.06.2021) and appointed Shikshan Sevak on 01.09.2021, had his approval proposal (forwarded 13.12.2021) rejected by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune (Dr. Bhausaheb Karekar), by an undated order (communicated 20.09.2024) on the sole ground that the appointment was made during the recruitment-ban period under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 04.05.2020. Relying on this Court's orders in Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar (W.P. No. 12388 of 2022, dated 26.02.2025) and Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh & Ors. (W.P. No. 12195 of 2025, Kolhapur Circuit Bench, dated 21.11.2025), which held that the said G.R. would not be applicable to a minority educational institution — a position the learned AGP did not dispute — the Court held the sole ground of rejection unsustainable, allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order, declined to remand, granted approval from the date of appointment, directed issuance of the approval order within 15 days and initiation of the Shalarth ID process within a further 15 days, and made Rule absolute.

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE

907-wp-14689-2024.odt

Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2026.02.03 17:40:29 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 14689 OF 2024

Shri Agnel Anthon D’souza Age 34 yrs. Occupation service, Residing at Sai Park Lane no 06, Plot no. 101, Avhalwadi Pune 07 …. Petitioner

V/S

State of Maharashtra Through Department of Education Having office at Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032

Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune

The Poona Diocesan Educational Society 1B, Prince of Wales Drive, Bishop’s House, Pune 411 001

Through its President/ Secretary

St. Joseph Boy’s High School, Khadki Pune 411 003 District Pune, Through Its Head Master … Respondents

Mr.Chetan Patil (through VC) i/b. Mr.Mandar G. Bagkar for the Petitioner. Mr.Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr.Vilas Tapkir with Ms.Mrunmayi Khambete for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 30, 2026

...1

Trupti

907-wp-14689-2024.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the parties.

An advertisement was published in the daily Loksatta newspaper on 23.06.2021. The interviews were held on 25.06.2021. The Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on 01.09.2021.

A proposal seeking approval to his appointment was forwarded on 13.12.2021. Since the proposal was not decided, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 16546 of 2023. By order dated 19.01.2024, the said Writ Petition was disposed off with a direction to the Education Officer to decide the proposal. By an undated order, the Education Officer (Secondary), Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune, namely, Dr.Bhausaheb Karekar, rejected the proposal on the sole ground that the appointment was made during the period when there was a ban on recruitment, vide Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 04.05.2020.

The Petitioner relies upon the order passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 12388 of 2022 dated 26.02.2025 (Miss Tehasin Shabbir

...2

Trupti

907-wp-14689-2024.odt

Ahamad Inamdar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), to which one of us (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) is a party, wherein it has been held that the said G.R. would not be applicable to a minority educational institution. The learned AGP does not dispute the said position. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner cites one more judgment of this Court delivered at the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No. 12195 of 2025 dated 21.11.2025 (Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and points out that the view taken by this Court in Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar (supra) was followed.

The learned AGP points out that the impugned order (undated ) was communicated to the Petitioner and his management vide a covering letter dated 20.09.2024, which is prior to the above-referred judgments.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

Since the only ground for rejection of the proposal has

already been held to be unsustainable by this Court in Miss Tehasin

...3

Trupti

907-wp-14689-2024.odt

Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar and Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh & Ors. (supra), there is no reason to remand the matter back to the Education Officer. We grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner from the date on which he was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. The education officer shall issue the Approval order within 15 days from today. The Management shall initiate the process for obtaining a Shalarth ID for the Petitioner, with 15 days thereafter.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(ABHAY J.MANTRI, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...4

Trupti